The studies on religiosity conducted in recent years in Poland have
revealed two coexisting, though contradictory, processes. On the one
hand, secularization progresses unceasingly (though at a slow rate) –
religious faith is weakening and participation in church activities
is shrinking. On the other hand, however, one poll after another has
shown rapidly growing support for the policy of the Catholic Church
and its flagship political spoils, as the ban on abortion, the
presence of the crucifix in the parliament or the refusal to legalize
civil gay unions.

In
1990s, nearly half of Poles advocated for liberal laws on abortion.
At the end of 2012, after years of secularization and the
self-proclaimed “Palikot revolution,” abortion was nearly
totally forbidden, and public support for the right to terminate
pregnancy if a woman is in a difficult situation fell to just 13
percent. In just four months between August and December 2012,
immediately after a vigorous anticlerical pro-choice campaign, the
number of supporters of the liberalization of abortion law plummeted
by one-third.

Almost
identical shift in opinion has occurred in regard to the crucifix in
the parliament. In 1997, when it was secretly hanged in our temple of
democracy, its presence there was supported by 52 percent of Poles,
while 29 percent were against. Fourteen years later, 70 percent of
respondents are in favor and only 20 per cent want to remove it. The
number of crucifix supporters has increased by 40 percent!

And
yet, at the same time, and especially after the death of John Paul II
in 2005, the percentage of people participating in religious
activities has clearly dropped and the number of those who practice
only occasionally has increased considerably. That is not all.
Successive polls have shown serious decline in the percentage of
Catholics who declare faith in mortal sin, in Hell, Heaven and the
afterlife. Instead, the number of agnostics and atheists doubled,
from 2.1 percent in 2009 to more than 4 percent today. It is not
insignificant, considering that further third of declaratory
believers have doubts about the existence of God, every sixteenth
admits that “it is only sometimes that he or she believes in
God," while only 9 percent declare that their faith is deep.

From
humanist point of view equally important is more selective and
individual approach to the moral doctrine of the Catholic church.
Studies show that believers often do not accept the basic moral
truths of their faith and recognize the views contrary to the
teachings of the Church. Only 22 per cent of those surveyed by CBOS
in 2012 consider the moral principles of Catholicism to be the best.
Nearly half of declarative Catholics are of the opinion that “although
these rules are mostly correct, they are not sufficient.” All
studies and all our experience show that they certainly do not agree
with all of them.

From
our point of view, equally or even more promising are the results of
foreign studies revealing that many somehow religious Poles reject
belief in personal God. According to the poll conducted in 2010 by
Eurostat, 14 per cent of respondents believe only in “some form
of spirituality or life force." This is certainly a very diverse
group, but mostly not obedient to the Catholic Church. One of them is
certainly Janusz Palikot, the leader of political and anti-clerical
zealots. In an interview with Agnieszka Kublik from Gazeta Wyborcza,
he admitted to the belief in the transmigration of souls. From a
rational point of view, belief in reincarnation or metempsychosis is
as wise as the belief in immaculate conception, ­ from a
political point of view, however, it seems safer, at least in the
near future, when Mr. Palikot and his followers have no visible
chance of taking power.

The
results of surveys quoted here, probably do not fully reflect the
scope and pace of secularization, as people's responses are
influenced by the so-called “variable of social approval.”
Some respondents are afraid to express the views which they consider
unacceptable to their neighbors and/or family members. The real
number of religiously indifferent is certainly greater. This
hypothesis is confirmed by the results of the survey by Eurostat, in
which only 79 percent of Poles admitted to belief in God. This is
much less than in the Polish studies, probably because the
respondents were more honest in surveys conducted by a foreign
institution.

Another
justification of this presumption comes from the results of a dozen
or so psychological interviews on the content and strength of
religious belief held last year among practicing Catholics from the
district of Mazovia. Practically all of them admitted that they
really were not sure about the existence of God, eternal life or the
reality of other promises of the Church. They generally agreed that
the word that best describes their state of mind in religious matters
is not “faith,” but “hope.”

What
can we do?

First
of all, we have to ask ourselves to whom we address our critiques and
political projects: to a narrow and unfortunately shrinking group of
readers of one weekly or another, or to millions of Polish people who
do not believe deeply or only from time to time? Do we only address
those who give the Church wide berth or also those who continue to
practice but no longer believe and only partially accept Catholic
morality? These people do not want a radical break with the Church
because this institution remains an important part of their lives, if
only out of habit or because many of them simply do not have anything
better to do on Sundays. Attending services is still free
“entertainment” and quite an attractive form of social
life. That is why many people identify with the Church, even if they
have a very critical attitude towards it. They may not even realize
it, but they feel hurt when they hear the tirades of overly excited
anticlericals. What they certainly feel is anger. People
semiconsciously compare these attacks with their own personal
experiences and what occurs as a result of this examination? The
local priest is not a pedophile, or at least nothing is known about
that. The privileges and financial scams of the clergy cause
short-lived outrage, but Poles are forgiving – after all, who
does not, from time to time, engage in some shenanigans? A priest
with a lover sets tongues wagging, but if he is amiable, they will
like him more than if he were a perfect prude. That is the way people
are (apart from a handful of fundamentalists on either side,) and we
have to take that into account if we really want to persuade them to
support our social and political goals. We should not avoid nor
artificially soften our criticism of the Church, we should, however,
emphasize that despite philosophical differences we take seriously
the views, habits, and life choices of the majority of Poles. It is
to them that we need to reach out if we really want to weaken the
political position of the Church.

A
good example of this kind of political project is the legislative
bill drafted by the Humanist Association and submitted to Parliament
by the Democratic Left Alliance (SLD) amending Article 196 on
offending religious feelings. The bill contains a variety of
proposals that in practice abolish this article, although it formally
retains a watered-version of criminal liability for offending
feelings through insulting the objects of worship, if this happens on
the grounds of a church or other place of worship. In the past 24
years, there has not been even one such case, so the law would
effectively protect freedom of speech and artistic expression, and ­
on the other hand ­ would give many less ardent Catholics the
feeling that the authors and promoters of the bill take their
feelings, views, and system of values seriously.

If
we want to fight against clericalization more effectively than
before, more political projects of this type will be necessary, along
with more statements made in a similar vein. If a bishop again
appeals for subordination of democracy to the Catholic Church,
commentary from our side should be critical and firm, but also
ostentatiously elegant. Not because we are afraid of the negative
reaction of the Church, or because we have angelic characters, but
because we are speaking to the majority, who will listen to us only
if they do not feel insulted. Threatening a bishop with reporting a
crime to the police is both unwise and undemocratic, like the demands
of the most politicized members of the Church hierarchy. Of course,
this does not mean that all left-wing politicians should speak with
one voice. This is neither possible nor necessary. But we should
remember that a column in an anticlerical weekly is one thing, and a
political speech, where we address a broad spectrum of society, quite
another. If we wish to influence their choices and views, we have to
use appropriate methods and not indulge passions or the strong urge
to amuse a group of fans.